Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The malpractice lawyers are trying to squeeze a very inconsequential tidbit about a fax about the radiology report never getting to the doctor who's getting sued.
Add to that, the lawyer claims the doctor didn't hand-hold the patient over to the surgeon directly for the referral.
That's the basis of his case.
Well the doctor noted that the patient had a breast lump and needed follow up care.
"In a response to the suit, the defense lawyers for Weston and Penn stated that “Weston ordered both a mammogram and ultrasound to investigate the” lump and that “Petty was expected to follow-up with Dr. Weston after the performance of [those] studies.”
Weston’s lawyers further argued that the doctor noted in Petty’s medical record that she had instructed Petty to return to the office after the ultrasound and to call if the size of the lump continued to increase."
Also read the last paragraph. This patient was on medicaid....that adds a little twist to the story. Many medicaid patients are just horrible at routine followup.
So these patients get free care, they are constantly reminded to have follow up care on their problems. They don't follow up. They blame the system and sue. I guess that's America for you.
There's a reason why a lot of doctors refuse medicaid patients (with the new US health bill, an estimated 16 million more Americans will be enrolled in medicaid). Low reimbursement for one. Lower level of education among patients. And I'm sorry to say this, many medicaid patients are so non compliant, you have to clearly document all the reminders you give patients. Add all this up: these patients are a setup for lawsuits.
This doctor who's getting sued worked for the UPenn system. It's a big academic teaching facility. I'm sure they have tons of medicaid patients because of it's location in Philadelphia.
It's up to the patient to follow up on further care once she's been informed that she may have cancer. A physician can't be expected to make every phone call in the world to every insurance company in order to find a adequate referral for the patient. And in this case the patient was clearly informed to seek further care. Why doesn't the patient's sue the taxpayers who are funding her medicaid? Why doesn't the patient sue the medicaid HMO that makes it difficult to find another surgeon who accepts medicaid?
And last of all, why is there a picture of the patient on a family vacation in London but she's on medicaid? She can't afford health insurance but can go on vacation to England?
That is why we don't see medicaid. They are non-compliant and are always looking to sue someone.
I love the "vacation to England". That is your healthcare dollars at work and will be one of the wonders of Obamacare. More medicaid patients- great.
I'm sure you are being sarcastic here. But my point is that you have the lawyers/patient advocates telling their side of the story.
I'm presenting my side of the story about why defensive medicine costs so much. If you make a mistake, especially if it involves a bad outcome, you set yourself up for civil legal matters.
People think these doctors order all these "non essential tests" just to make money. Sure there are a very small subset of doctors who are greedy. But they are in the vast minority. Docs look out for your best interest.
Just had a patient this morning. He's a pilot. He's schedule for a "minor surgical procedure" He was diagnosed with a Left Bundle Branch block (LBBB). For those not in the medical field a LBBB could mean the patient has some underlying heart condition.
Turns out the FAA (yes the FAA) ordered that he undergo a cardiac cath to look for heart disease even though he had no symptoms. Seems like the FAA does not want pilots flying unless they are absolutely sure there is no heart disease "just in case" he has a major heart attack during a flight and dies.
So instead of a much more simplier test so as a treadmill stress test, the FAA itself demands the pilot directly have a cardiac cath which costs much more money. The patient has no family history. No symptoms. Is a non smoker. Is not a diabetic. So is the FAA (or it's government contracted doctors) practicing defensive medicine here?
You see why defensive medicine costs so much money? Either you have to protect the patient or the government wants to protect the public (in the case of the pilot) .
What you're describing is not defensive medicine. Whay you're describing here is a medical test required by a regulatory body. Not at all the same thing. You can argue that this test was not medically necessary, but it had nothing to do with the medical malpractice system.
What you're describing is not defensive medicine. Whay you're describing here is a medical test required by a regulatory body. Not at all the same thing. You can argue that this test was not medically necessary, but it had nothing to do with the medical malpractice system.
No, what I'm describing is defensive medicine. You have to be in the medical field to see what defensive medicine test are. I described one simple patient complaint, "indigestion" with all the potential tests that can be done.
I was responding to your quote, "What they're saying is that in medicine it is a widespread practice for doctors to order tests that are not medically justified.
In other contexts that would be called insurance fraud or Medicaid fraud, but for some reason they don't seem even the slightest bit embarrassed about doing that."
The lawyers/liberal media will spin all these tests that I described as unnecessary tests. But they will all want to sue if there's a bad outcome because the physician doesn't order these tests.
So what is a necessary and what is a necessary test? According to your quote, it's widespread practice for doctors to order test that are not medically justified. You even resort to calling it insurance fraud.
And yes the pilot case has to do with the malpractice system. The FAA doesn't want to get sued if one of their pilots gets a heart attack. The airline that employs the pilot doesn't want to get sued if it's pilot has a heart attack. It subjects him to "an unnecessary procedure, the cardiac cath" even though he had no symptoms. You really think the airlines will accept blame as an employer? No, they will directly point fingers at the physician and asks why he/she didn't do further workup on an abnormal EKG.
Their is absolutely NO STANDARD of CARE that directs a physician to directly go to a cardiac cath (directly bypassing a stress test) if the patient has no symptoms. So what you are suggesting is that the FAA (as a regulatory body) is in fact directing physicians to practice defensive medicine.
Sorta of correct on ur post about malpractice costs.
The lawyers only count actual premiums paid, closed claims cases to arrive at at that 1% of total health care costs.
What they never factor in is defensive medicine costs. That acctounts for 6-8 percent of healthcare spending. You do realize how much 6-8% of healthcare spending is?
I love stats. You obviously read the malpractice lawyers stats. The issue is no one wants to sponsor a study a study on defensive medicine.
6-8% "defensive" medicine is totally bogus. Thee's no credible study that documents such an entity. States like Texas and California that have already capped medical malpractice awards have seen no decline in patient cost. Medical studies show that about 90% of malpractice claims have merit and we kill 200,000 people a year due to avoidable medical errors.
Okay, you've decided to redefine "defensive medicine" to mean whatever you want it to mean, and not what the whole rest of the world means by the term. I suppose you're entitled to do that, but don't pretend that the instance you describe, in which a medical test was ordered by a regulatory body, has anything to do with medical malpractice, because it just doesn't.
You might as well call every employment-related drug test and every license-related eye test "defensive medicine", but that won't make it true.
And it wasn't me who said that there are a lot of unnecessary medical tests and procedures orderd: it was you.
6-8% "defensive" medicine is totally bogus. Thee's no credible study that documents such an entity. States like Texas and California that have already capped medical malpractice awards have seen no decline in patient cost. Medical studies show that about 90% of malpractice claims have merit and we kill 200,000 people a year due to avoidable medical errors.
You do realize why there is no definitive study on defensive medicine? The malpractice lawyers don't want it sponsored. No one wants to sponsor it. Obama wants to spend 25 millon on "malpractice studies". That may seem like a lot of money. Until you realize ACORN was to receive 8.5 BILLION ear marked from a stimulus program when they were still in business.
Obama knows his is threading on very thin ice with the ABA and the American Trial Lawyers Assocation.
Why do malpractice lawyers tend to sue government doctors less than private doctors? Easy answer. It's been and always been about money. Most government doctors can't be sued or the system makes it extremely difficult to sue for more than $250K.
I never said anything about capping malpractice awards. I've always favored letting patients have their day in court. I wanted a loser pays system or a system where attorney costs are capped at less than 20% of the total rewards like they have in other foreign countries.
You do realize why there is no definitive study on defensive medicine? The malpractice lawyers don't want it sponsored. No one wants to sponsor it. Obama wants to spend 25 millon on "malpractice studies". That may seem like a lot of money. Until you realize ACORN was to receive 8.5 BILLION ear marked from a stimulus program when they were still in business.
What I realize is that any claim of "defensive medicine" costs is totally bogus. Made up numbers with no statistical basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp
Why do malpractice lawyers tend to sue government doctors less than private doctors? Easy answer. It's been and always been about money. Most government doctors can't be sued or the system makes it extremely difficult to sue for more than $250K.
In 90% of malpractice claims there is documented injury. Without medical malpractice there wouldn't be malpractice suits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp
I never said anything about capping malpractice awards. I've always favored letting patients have their day in court. I wanted a loser pays system or a system where attorney costs are capped at less than 20% of the total rewards like they have in other foreign countries.
Ask your Congressman to introduce such a bill. If it passes we'll have a loser pays system.
What I realize is that any claim of "defensive medicine" costs is totally bogus. Made up numbers with no statistical basis.
In 90% of malpractice claims there is documented injury. Without medical malpractice there wouldn't be malpractice suits.
Ask your Congressman to introduce such a bill. If it passes we'll have a loser pays system.
I did, I recently moved from Maryland (E. Cummings is about as liberal/socialist Democrat as they come). Sent him a long email. All I got was a pre-recorded phone call from his office telling me how good healthcare reform would be.
Of course defensive medicine costs are bogus/estimates as you claim. So why doesn't the government throw real money into sponsoring a study. Why are they offering to give 25 million for a study while they want to throw 8.5 BILLLION towards the now defunct liberal leaning pimp approving ACORN?
Most malpractice cases rarely reach the courts. Even those that do reach, the plaintiffs lose over 70-80% of the time.
You do realize why there is no definitive study on defensive medicine? The malpractice lawyers don't want it sponsored. No one wants to sponsor it. Obama wants to spend 25 millon on "malpractice studies". That may seem like a lot of money. Until you realize ACORN was to receive 8.5 BILLION ear marked from a stimulus program when they were still in business.
Obama knows his is threading on very thin ice with the ABA and the American Trial Lawyers Assocation.
Why do malpractice lawyers tend to sue government doctors less than private doctors? Easy answer. It's been and always been about money. Most government doctors can't be sued or the system makes it extremely difficult to sue for more than $250K.
I never said anything about capping malpractice awards. I've always favored letting patients have their day in court. I wanted a loser pays system or a system where attorney costs are capped at less than 20% of the total rewards like they have in other foreign countries.
I would sure love to hear your opinion on this:
google-Mark Kabins MD LV Neuro surgery-the medical mafia
I just read the story that was linked in the original post.
truly a sad scenario, when the lawyer bits are removed.
The truth in my opinion is that the Primary care doctor and the patient both failed in this one.
I mean, the primary care doc should have followed up when they did not receive the test results in a timely manner.
But on the other hand, if I was the patient, I would have followed up with the doc and asked what the results were.
Although I think the doctor was negligent, I seriously do not believe this warrants a multimillion dollar verdict. It was a mistake, and it was a costly mistake. The emphasis needs to be preventing this scenario.
And I think electronics medical records could reduce this, but something as simple as the primary care doctor explaining to the patient that I should have these test result by such and such date, if you haven't heard from me by then, CALL ME to find out what happened!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
